Hey everyone. I got into photography last fall, not wanting to throw a bunch of money into a new hobby I picked up an XSi with the kit lens, then to cover a more broad focal range got the cheapo 55-250 afterwards. Fastforward 6 months and I've found something I could very well enjoy the rest of my life :mrgreen: woohoo. Anyhow, I came to the conclusion that I am willing to throw a little bit more cash down for some quality gear. I've been looking into some new glass, and am quite intrigued by the images of landscapes and buildings produced by the higher quality wide angle lenses. I'm very interested in 2 different lenses at the moment.... the 17-40mm f4L and the 16-35 f2.8L. I've done my research on both of them, and read mixed reviews on both as well. Now I'm looking for an interactive discussion, preferably from people that have used both, or at least one of the products first hand. The first difference between the the 2 is obvious.. price. B&H has the 17-40 at 700 USD and the 16-35 at 1450.. I would love the extra stop to use for shooting a friends concerts ( I know the super wide angle isn't the most conventional for shooting concerts but I feel I could get some great images with it being up front at the shows ) Also another plus, if I'm not mistaken, would be that the lens would tend to be sharper at f4-5.6 due to it being further stopped down from wide open, correct? This would be nice, but I'm not sure if it'd be worth the extra 750 dollars for me. If the 16-35 is superior to the 17-40 I would be willing to pay the extra money, 750 dollars is by no means a small amount to me, but I realize that it would be a purchase that I would use and enjoy for many years to come. I know there is an 18-55mm 2.8 IS and the 10-22mm too, but I would very much like an EF lens as opposed to an EF-S in case I'd upgrade bodies later on. Sorry for such a long post Any discussion on this topic would be greatly appreciated, especially from those who have used both pieces of glass.. aaaaand go.